Assignment 1 real property

MEMORANDUM

From: Harlee Cuomo
To: Professor
Date: March 2, 2021
Re: Assignment 4

Relevant Facts
The Steeles purchased a clothes dryer from Clayton’s Appliances; Grey Enterprises manufactured the clothes dryer. The Steeles read the instruction manual and followed the guidelines for the use of the dryer. Even though Mrs. Steele was using the dryer properly, it caught fire and burnt the house down and caused significant burns to Mrs. Steele. After an investigation, it was determined that the dryer was defective and a faulty wire was the cause of the fire.
An expert testified that the wire should have been sheathed in blue-7 coating but it was sheathed in blue-6 coating instead. After obtaining documents from Clayton’s and Grey Enterprises, it was discovered that the dryer left Grey’s facilities in perfect condition with the proper wiring in place. During the shipment to Clayton’s, the dryer was damaged a little and Clayton had to make some minor repairs, including replacing the wire at issue. The following is a case of strict product liability.

Issue

The issue in this case is If Mrs. Steele sues Clayton’s and Grey Enterprises for negligence under strict products liability, what will the likely outcome be?

Rule

Strict Product Liability

“Strict product liability laws state that a manufacturer or distributor of a defective product will owe an injured person compensation even if the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the defect. In strict product liability cases, it will not matter whether the defendant was negligent. The plaintiff could still receive financial compensation for damages even without proof of the defendant’s fault.” (www.frtriallawyers.com)
“A defendant seller, distributor or manufacturer of a defective product can be liable to anyone injured by that product, regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened.” (www.alllaw.com)

Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238, 955 P.2d 661, 664 (1998)

The plaintiff was paralyzed after a crash that occurred when operating a Yamaha four-wheel all-terrain vehicle. The plaintiff sued “Yamaha Motor Corporation, on theories of strict products liability and negligence,” (Yamaha Motor Co.). The plaintiff alleged, “that an improperly designed suspension and inadequate warnings were the proximate cause of her injuries,” (Yamaha Motor Co.).
Prior to the incident the plaintiff confirmed that she read the owners manual and was properly using the vehicle when the accident occurred. Witnesses confirmed that the plaintiff was not operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner, (Yamaha Motor Co.). The plaintiff was awarded $3,600,000.00 in damages. “The jury, via a special verdict, grounded liability upon Yamaha’s failure to warn. It did not find the existence of a defect in the design of the ATV. Thereafter, the district court awarded the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $237,100 under NRCP 68,” (Yamaha Motor Co.).

Seely v. White Motor Company (1965) 63 C2d 9, 18.

The defendant made various alterations and repairs to a truck prior to a final sale. Upon sale, the brakes on the truck failed and plaintiff was injured. The plaintiff then stopped making payments on the truck and the defendant repossessed the truck due to defaulting.
The court awarded damages, including purchase price and loss profits because the defendant had breached its warranty, (Seely). Seely states, “ Even in actions for negligence, a manufacturer’s liability is limited to damages for physical injuries and there is no recovery for economic loss alone.”
Therefore in this case “Plaintiff was not entitled to damages under a strict liability theory because the trial court found that there was no proof that the truck’s defect caused its physical damage,” (Seely).

Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc., 59 Cal. 2d 57, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897 (1963)

In this case the plaintiff brought action against a retailer and manufacturer. The plaintiff was injured while using a power tool. The tool was made by the manufacturer and sold by the retailer. The plaintiff, “alleged breach of express and implied warranties and negligence.” (Greenman).
The plaintiff was using the power tool as intended and it resulted in an injury due to defective design in which the plaintiff was not warned about (Greenman). In this case, “the manufacturer was strictly liable because the power tool that was placed on the market, without inspection for defects, had a hidden defect that caused injury,” (Greenman). The lack of warning to the consumer for the defect in the power tool was enough cause for the manufacturer to be strictly liable, (Greenman).

Application

In the current case Mrs. Steele was severely injured when properly using a clothes dryer sold to her by Claytons and manufactured by Grey Enterprise. The Steele home was received substantial damage from the fire as well as physical injuries to Mrs. Steele. In the case of Yamaha the use of the ATV was similar to the use of the dryer. Mrs. Steele read the owners manual prior to usage and was properly using the dryer when the accident occurred. Mrs. Steele was not warned about the alterations made by Claytons when the damage to the dryer occurred. In the case of Yamaha, the ATV did not have a defective design. Upon leaving the premises of Grey Enterprises, the dryer was in good working condition and therefore there strict liability would not apply to Grey Enterprise. However, Claytons failed to warn Mrs. Steele of the alterations made to the dryer in transport. “The jury, via a special verdict, grounded liability upon Yamaha’s failure to warn,” (Yamaha). Claytons failed to warn the customer about the possible hazardous outcomes that may come through use of the altered product. In the case of Yamaha, the plaintiff was awarded monetary damages as well as attorney’s fees, which could transfer over to the case of the Steeles.
In the case of Greenman, the manufacturer failed to issue proper warning to the retailer or consumer of the defective product. However, in the case of the clothes dryer, Grey Enterprise produced a dryer in perfect working condition. Claytons made alterations to the dryer after damage occurred and therefore, Claytons is responsible for issuing proper warning of defective issues with the clothes dryer. Grey Enterprises was not aware of the alterations made by Claytons. The lack of warning given to Mrs. Steele would constitute Claytons for being strictly liable, (Greenman).
In order for a case of strict liability to be successful there are three things the plaintiff must show. According to alllaw.com, the first is that, “the product was unreasonably unsafe or unreasonably dangerous when it was designed, manufactured, or sold,” (alllaw.com). The dryer that Mrs. Steele purchased was in good working condition upon leaving the premises of Grey Enterprise. However, the dryer was damaged while in transit and was no longer in good working condition and the alterations made by Claytons caused the dryer to be faulty.
The second requirement is, “the seller expected and intended that the product would reach the consumer without changes to the product,” (alllaw.com). Grey Enterprise was unaware of the damage to the dryer. They were also unaware of the alterations that Claytons made to the product. Grey Enterprise believed that the dryer was sold to the Steele family with the same parts that it was initially manufactured with. However, Claytons was aware of the alterations they made and sold it to the Steele family knowing that they made changes to the initial products functionality.
The final requirement for strict liability is that, “the plaintiff was injured by the defective product,” (alllaw.com). Mrs. Steele was physically injured by the product when she was properly using the clothes dryer.
Unlike other cases of negligence, a claim under strict product liability can succeed even when the plaintiff fails to prove that the manufacturer of the product was negligent and because of their carelessness, the claimant suffered injuries (Boeschen, 2016). All of the conditions for strict liability were met in the Steeles’ case against Claytons.

Conclusion

In conclusion, strict liability cases may be filed against manufacturers as well as instituted against retailers and distributors.

Grey Enterprises

The clothes dryer left the premises in perfect working order. The evidence provides that upon leaving the facility, the dryer was in good working condition and did not have any defects. The working integrity of the dryer was faulty due to interference of the distributor (Claytons) and therefore Grey Enterprises was not at fault for the physical injuries suffered by Mrs. Steele or the monetary loss she and her family suffered in result of the fire.

Claytons

Claytons will be at fault for the physical injury and monetary loss that occurred during the use of the dryer. Mrs. Steele was using the dryer properly and the fire occurred through a defect caused by the improper installation of wiring. The wiring the Claytons used to repair the dryer was a fire hazard. The repairs made by Claytons without proper materials made the dryer a hazard and therefore Claytons are negligent. Claytons is at fault for the physical injuries suffered by Mrs. Steele or the monetary loss she and her family suffered in result of the fire.

Overall

Grey Enterprises was compliant with the wiring standards and manufacturing procedures of the dryer. The damage caused to the product made Clayton modify it but did not apply a significant warning or alert the customer of the repairs that could be hazardous. All three conditions of strict liability were met and therefore Claytons is liable for the physical injuries suffered by Mrs. Steele and the monetary loss she and her family suffered in result of the fire.